intcountzero Reviews

Shall We Dance? (2004)

Nothing to be afraid of gentleman...

[8/10 · 15 February 2007]

A lot of men will run from this so-called 'chick flick'. But I stand before men everywhere, between the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup, with my jockstrap in hand, with my autographed Joe Namath poster in my 'den for men', sitting near my bar and on-top of my pool table, laptop in hand....Do yourselves a favor and watch the film. You'll be rewarded, and maybe learn a few things about yourself along the way.

I'm not saying it fix things that might be broken, or try to change you. Women seem to be authority there, and are much better at it. But I would suggest that it perhaps taking less than 2 hours of your life to learn about the woman you have been married to for over a decade...all over again. We forget to much. Not your fault. It's what makes us human. But we also have in our ability a way to re-gain what was lost. To try and remember again.

I guarantee one thing, after watching this film that is not exactly a monument to acting, that will not win one award, that will be snubbed by all men....I guarantee that you might quickly see that woman next to you in bed again for the first time, and remember why it was you went to all that damn trouble standing in front of all of those family and friends, or when you ran away and eloped, and profess it all, that you wanted to be with her from here on in.

Give yourself chance to re-take what time took away. Then, when you feel that little bit of warmth above your head (that's the light bulb turning on), go to a flower shop, buy some flowers, and bring them home to her tonight for no bloody reason, other than you being able to trick time.

Like I said...no academy award....but it will make you think a bit and have fun doing it.

V for Vendetta (2005)

One day...

[10/10 · 6 August 2006]

When history looks back at this crazy period of the early 21st century, they will ask why we were so blind, with the messengers all trying to spell it out for us, and they would have been right to ask.

In all honesty, I gave this movie a 10 mostly due in part because of the political message. That said, the film has merrit. The plot is good, but perhaps too blatantly over-the-top for most people.

I admit the acting was average. The script as well. But I can't help it. It achieved in me a catharsis I haven't had in a while. I can't in good faith NOT recommend anyone to watch this, given the climate of the world today. Watch, get angry, and get involved.

If you watched this and got angry for another reason, because you feel it was too one sided, or left-wing, or betrayed family values, or communistic, or felt that the film should be banned....good. It gives me pleasure that the people it should have offended, were.

Gandhi (1982)

Monumental moments captured in 70mm

[10/10 · 25 July 2006]

Gandhi is one of the last films of its day prior to the industry going so high-tech, that was forced to using real landscapes and tens of thousands of extras. The movie is given a perfect 10 score here in part due to logistics, one of the most non-understood elements by critics and audiences, who have taken movie production completely for granted in today's age where scenery is created not on sets, but on computers. That said, it gains only 1 mark of 10 for this. I reserve the balance score for the performance of Ben Kingsley, who was hands-down winner of Best Actor for 1982, and the tremendous effort to movie making brought forth by Richard Attenborough.

This film is shot in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia, or The Greatest Story Ever Told, or 10 Commandments, or even Gone With the Wind. It is a true epic. My biggest fear is the movie's message has lost all meaning today, or worse, that it is re-made.

The Libertine (2004)

Johnny the Chameleon

[8/10 · 25 July 2006]

What makes an actor brilliant, and in a league of their own, is when assuming a role, and becoming so engrossed by it, you completely forget who it is you are watching. They achieve a full transformation. This adds to legitimacy, and therefore to the overall effect of the story. Sometime it can save a movie from disaster.

The story is not unique, but enjoyable. Depp however, raises this enjoyment to a higher bar by sucking you in to the world portrayed. He's just plain good at it regardless of the role. When that happens, viewers will most likely like the film more than they want to, or should have. I felt this way after seeing The Libertine.

It's a good film to convert those who rarely watch this kind of period drama. They will most likely get into it by half way through the film. Depp fans will be engrossed from the opening credits.

Johnny is putting together a collection of work that is diverse, bold, exciting, and challenging to the greatest of actors today, or in history. At the rate he's on, I suspect he will one day be known as one of the greatest actors ever, simply by osmosis. The Chameleon made you believe without you wanting or caring to. He seems to always have the audience in the palm of his hands. This film is no different.

John Malkovich is good, but not great. However he is heavily contrasted here and is simply perfection as a supporting role. You can just see it: How he props his colleague and bestows verbal and semantic skills to prop the main character into the spotlight. He would have been an excellent candidate for Best Supporting Actor that year, had the role been a tad larger, if not pivotal.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

How does Eastwood do it?

[9/10 · 16 July 2006]

Time and time again, the old school of Clint Eastwood has demonstrated that quality over quantity is the name of the game in the art of movie making. He manages to pluck winners with a pristine and clarity that would rival any producer/director of age today. He churns them out slowly, but when they arrive at our movie screen doorstep, the reward is well worth the wait.

This movie rivals the effort and result that came from "Unforgiven". It will be regarded as a classic modern tragedy in the years to come. No one will forget seeing it. It deserved every Academy accolade it was given, if not short a few more.

Morgan Freeman is the world best supporting actor of all time. Very few have the ability to debate this fact. No one fits this role better, or has mastered it better than he. Don't believe me? Rent "Shawshank Redemption", "Seven", "The Power of One". Hell, you could even rent "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" for all I care for the sake of argument. He shines even in a weak film.

For Hiliary Swank, all I can say is that I misjudged her early. This woman was made for intense dramas. I had earlier thought that Hollywood propped her up as what was "in", but she has time and again since "Boys Don't Cry", proved me wrong. She is the real deal, and she has one hell of a career still ahead of her to dominate the industry and the acting peer space as one of the best of her generation.

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

One of the best 2004 had to offer

[8/10 · 15 July 2006]

There have been some great reviews here on this film. So I will follow up only with the comment that Ben Kingsley will be regarded one day as an acting legend of the last 25 years, ever since his academy award performance as Ghandi in 1982. He commands the camera and raises the level of any film he's in by lending a great deal of legitimacy to it. He defines the underrated actor.

I've seen Jennifer Connolly do better, but it doesn't take away from he effort she gave. She manages to pull it off.

This is a good film when someone is seeking intensity, with a large dose of reality. It's another film depicting, much like "Monster", how America's system failed it's people, and leaves a wake of destruction in extreme circumstances.

Desperation (2006 TV Movie)

Starts good, ends in a nightmare King couldn't imagine

[2/10 · 23 May 2006]

Just showed on ABC. After an interesting and classic King first hour, it was a gradual decline into absolute garbage. How King could have even allowed his name to be associated with this is as strange as the funky sheriff with the demonic attitude.

The producers have placed a religious overtone on the plot that is not as present in the actual novel. It's apparent the religious/political argument being made here, and it spoils the whole theme. It's hard to believe the movie could have been slower than the book. It would have been more entertaining had they continued exploring the "Republican-in-a-demon-suit" thing.

Don't waste 3 hours better spent elsewhere.

Taps (I) (1981)

Changing perspectives

[8/10 · 1 September 2004]

The biggest kick I got was seeing Hutton, Cruise, and Penn as teenagers turning out amazing performances at such a younger age. I guess some actors are just destined to rise to the top.

George C. Scott also turned in a great, believable performance as an old wartime General. However I find it interesting, after seeing this movie over 20 years later, how it's context has changed for me personally. While in '81, the story was perhaps designed to generate sympathy for the General and his plight, I look at his situation today and feel nothing but pity for him, as I would for any Shakespearean tragic hero, who because of their narrow-sightedness, could not see the bigger picture. And in this case, their consequences caused a chain of events that took on an uncontrollable life of their own. Funny how the years can sometimes dictate understanding and perspective.

The previous review mentioned for this flick is 100% bang on.